USA v. Chantell Daniel
Per Curiam OPINION filed: AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr; Jeffrey S. Sutton and David W. McKeague, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a1301n.06
Dec 19, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHANTELL L. DANIEL,
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: SILER, SUTTON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Chantell L. Daniel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Daniel pleaded guilty to possession and distribution of 50.6 grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court determined that Daniel’s base offense level
was 28. The court subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense
level of 25. Based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of VI, Daniel’s
guideline range of imprisonment was 110 to 137 months. Daniel was subject to a statutory
mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months, however, which became the bottom of the guideline
range. The district court granted the government’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1 to depart downward from the mandatory minimum sentence and guideline range. The court
United States v. Daniel
granted Daniel a one-level departure, resulting in a guideline range of 100 to 125 months. The court
sentenced Daniel to 100 months in prison.
Following amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the base offense level for
certain crack cocaine offenses, Daniel moved for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2). The district
court denied the motion, concluding that Daniel was ineligible for a sentence reduction. On appeal,
Daniel argues that he is eligible for a reduced sentence because Amendment 750 both lowered the
post-departure guideline range on which his sentence was based and lowered his applicable guideline
range from 110 to 137 months to 92 to 115 months.
We review de novo a district court’s conclusion that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774, 776-77 (6th Cir. 2012). To
be eligible for a reduction, a defendant must show that his sentence was based on a sentencing range
that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission and that the reduction would be
consistent with the Commission’s applicable policy statements. Id. at 777. One such policy
statement, which applies when a district court departs downward from the original guideline range
on the basis of a defendant’s substantial assistance, restricts the extent of a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) to a comparable downward departure from the amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3.
Despite Daniel’s argument to the contrary, the 2011 amendments to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(A) do not demonstrate that a defendant’s “applicable guideline range” is determined without
reference to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1(a)(8), 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(A)(ii), 5G1.1; see also McClain, 691 F.3d at 779. Consequently, because the low end of
United States v. Daniel
Daniel’s guideline range continued to be 120 months after the enactment of Amendment 750, he was
not eligible for a reduced sentence because a comparable downward departure from the amended
guideline range resulted in the same 100-month sentence that the district court originally imposed.
See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?